Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness consult the Chief Inspector of Prisons, who has said in her annual report that diet can have a significant effect on behaviour? Does she think that the average budget of £1.87 per day allocated for food in prisons allows governors to provide the effective diet that the chief inspector calls for, and has the NAO report, which criticises the level of salt in prison diets—93 per cent over the recommended limits—and the inadequate level of fibres been taken note of in the Home Office?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I can assure the House that we recognise the complexity and sensitivity that surround these matters. It is in the context that we have had discussions on these matters for more than 20 years with the United States as the technology surrounding the possibility of missile defence has emerged. Given the recognition of the sensitivity, I will pass on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the point that the noble Lord has made about the need for full consultation on these matters.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that in the United States the question of how effective missile defence is likely to be is a very lively one; there is no consensus on it. The argument, of course, is that missiles are not particularly effective against terrorism. Will the Minister comment on that?

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches wanted the Bill to contain a provision to abolish the common-law offence of conspiracy to defraud, as recommended by the Law Commission, and I moved an amendment to that effect on Report. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General wishes to retain the offence for the time being because, in his view, it may be useful in certain circumstances. But it is agreed that the retention of the common-law offence will be reviewed in three years' time in the light of the extent to which it turns out to be useful in the interim period.
	The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General offered to show the draft advice which he has prepared for prosecutors and which is intended to restrict the use of the common-law offence to cases which are not adequately covered by the new legislation on fraud. He has sent copies of a working draft of his advice to me and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I am satisfied by the advice, but it would be very helpful if the noble and learned Lord could explain it to your Lordships' House and put on record an outline of his advice. In the circumstances, it is my intention to withdraw my amendment at the end of the debate. I beg to move.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces earlier today in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"On 15 December 2004, I informed the House that I had commissioned a review into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four young soldiers at Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut, during the period 1995 to 2002. As I told the House then, I was aware that its scope and nature may not satisfy all those—Members of this House included—who have been calling for a formal public inquiry into combat deaths in the Armed Forces, and in particular the four deaths at Deepcut. I said that by concentrating on the circumstances of the four deaths, the review would focus on the issue at the heart of current public concern.
	"The review has been undertaken by the distinguished human rights lawyer Mr Nicholas Blake QC and is now complete. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	"This morning the families had the benefit of a briefing by Mr Blake on his conclusions. I know that this will be another difficult day for them; the passage of time, in such sad circumstances, does little to lessen the pain. I hope that they will find at least that Mr Blake has addressed carefully and sensitively the questions that have troubled them. I acknowledge the dignity with which they have conducted themselves over this long period.
	"I am grateful to Mr Blake for the thorough and professional way in which he has approached his task. In conducting his review he has had the full co-operation of the Ministry of Defence. He has had full and unrestricted access to our records, and all serving soldiers were encouraged to help the review in any way they could. I am satisfied that this report, running to 416 pages plus annexes, represents an independent, objective and comprehensive analysis of all matters that have a bearing on the four deaths, and that Mr Blake has not been constrained by his terms of reference. Importantly, he has been able to tackle the wider issues.
	"There were three issues around which much comment had been made about events at Deepcut: the alleged suspicious circumstances of the deaths; a claimed culture of bullying; and the need for a formal public inquiry. I am pleased to note that Mr Blake makes substantial findings on all three points.
	"First, Mr Blake has concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the deaths of Sean Benton, Cheryl James and Geoff Gray at Deepcut were self-inflicted. Given the recent coroner's inquest into the death of James Collinson, he understandably refrains from reaching any conclusion on that particular death. However, he does comment that the opportunity for self-infliction was afforded by the policy of frequently assigning trainees to guard duty at Deepcut, unsupervised by experienced soldiers. The review found a number of factors that may have contributed to their unhappiness and may have made them more susceptible to self-harm. The review considers that,
	"although the Army did not cause any of the deaths",
	there were institutional failures to identify potential sources of risk and to subsequently address them.
	"On the question of bullying, Mr Blake states that there is no evidence that any of the trainees were bullied to death. However, he accepts that some trainees at Deepcut—and, at that, probably only a small minority—experienced harassment, discrimination and oppressive behaviour. Those who did not complain appear to have had little confidence that the system could or would address their grievances. These are important criticisms, which will be addressed.
	"Finally, on the question of a public inquiry, as I indicated in my response to the earlier HCDC report on this, I did not consider that a formal public inquiry was required. The HCDC was of a similar view. Mr Blake, in a carefully reasoned examination of the arguments for such an approach, has concluded that a public inquiry into the immediate or broader circumstances surrounding these deaths is not necessary. I reaffirm my earlier position and concur with Mr Blake's conclusion.
	"This review, taken alongside the other inquiries and inquests into the deaths at Deepcut, has set out with great clarity the circumstances of the four deaths and the context in which they occurred. We now need to move on and to take forward the changes that are required. We accept Mr Blake's conclusions and welcome the opportunity to address his recommendations. We accept that there have been shortcomings, and we will do all we can to address them.
	"Although the purpose of the review was not to attribute blame, Mr Blake has described a disturbing catalogue of allegations of misconduct at the relevant times. The Army authorities will carefully examine the report to see whether there is any indication of professional misconduct or negligence that might make administrative action appropriate. In addition, any matters that suggest that a disciplinary offence may have been committed will be referred to the Royal Military Police for further investigation. We will also have to take into account the overall training environment in which our personnel were working, and the constraints faced by those in the command chain.
	"Mr Blake understands the importance, particularly for the Army, of recruiting under-18s, but he has highlighted weaknesses with regard to their appropriate care. This is an issue that we are alive to, and we are improving the standard of care and support afforded to young recruits. For example, trainees' surveys and focus groups have been established, and a note of guidance for all commanding officers covering all aspects relating to working with under-18s has been produced. Furthermore, Mr Blake commends in particular the specialist training regimes for 16 year-olds established at the Army Training Regiment, Bassingbourn, and the Army Foundation College, Harrogate. But there is clearly still more to do, especially in extending best practices such as these establishments, and we are committed to implementing such changes as far and as quickly as we can.
	"The quality of our Armed Forces and the professional way in which they were, and are, meeting their operational commitments is evidence of the quality of military training, and I pay tribute to this without hesitation. The report describes the British Army as a unique and extraordinary institution which, for the past decade or more, has been sent on a wide variety of operational deployments in many parts of the world, to great personal danger and regular personal sacrifice.
	"The report notes that many of the young people who are, or were, accepted as recruits into the Army have had very challenging lives as children; a high proportion are from single-parent homes; some had left school with no qualifications; many had deficits in basic skills. The report comments that it is a remarkable challenge to turn these young people into effective soldiers forming part of a disciplined and interdependent team. It is worth noting that Deepcut alone sent approximately 10,000 trainees into the field Army during the period covered by the review.
	"However, the number of young people, particularly those under 18, whom the services employ places particular responsibilities on us to recognise their potential vulnerability. We are committed to improving the way in which all our recruits are trained, developed and looked after. In view of this, and in the light of the recommendations made in recent reports by the House of Commons Defence Committee and the Adult Learning Inspectorate, work has already been, and continues to be, done to make changes for the better.
	"As in society as a whole, bullying, harassment and other inappropriate behaviour can never be totally eliminated in the Armed Forces. But it is essential that we establish an environment in which bullying is wholly unacceptable. At every stage of their training and careers, it is made very clear to personnel that bullying and harassment in any form is not tolerated and that it is part of their duty, and a function of leadership, to eliminate it.
	"It is a sad and unfortunate fact, again just as in wider society, that the Armed Forces will never be able to eradicate the tragic incidence of suicide or self-harm. But the risks can be reduced to a minimum by careful management, pragmatic policies and better understanding, knowledge and education. As the Blake review makes clear:
	'Every Officer, NCO, civilian instructor and trainee should be alert to any sign of abuse and be required to report it through the chain of Command, so prompt and effective action can be taken'.
	"The Armed Forces Bill, currently being scrutinised by a Select Committee of this House, contains proposals to streamline the complaints redress system, including provision for an independent element. Also, the Bill will consider aspects of the procedures applying to boards of inquiry. The review makes recommendations in these two important areas. We will give full consideration to those recommendations, and the Bill gives us the opportunity to implement any changes deemed appropriate.
	"The report has identified areas in the training environment, especially between 1995 and 2002, that required improvement. It cites examples of inappropriate behaviour that should not have taken place. It also identifies areas where we can, and should, improve the way in which we manage the young people for whom we are responsible, and we accept these observations. We now need to look at every one of Mr Blake's 34 detailed recommendations to see how they should best be taken forward to address the weaknesses identified as quickly and as effectively as possible. I also urge honourable and right honourable Members to take time to analyse Mr Blake's report in full prior to forming their own opinions.
	"Mr Blake has given us a detailed and painstaking report of considerable substance. I am confident that it will provide further impetus for improvement. I can assure the House of my determination to deal with the issues he has raised, and I undertake to provide a detailed formal written response to the House on all the recommendations. I am determined to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future. I have enormous confidence in the dedicated men and women working as instructors in our training organisation. I want to make sure that they have the support, resources and facilities they need to pursue excellence. The trained young men and women they produce lie at the very core of how we deliver on the defence interests of this country. Their efforts have to be matched by commitment from the very top of the MoD.
	"Mr Blake concluded his report with his profound condolences to each of the families concerned. On behalf of the Ministry of Defence, I add my condolences".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The Blake review is a substantial document and will require detailed study. But we must not lose sight of the fact that it was necessary because of the deaths of four young recruits. These deaths were personal tragedies, and the hearts of all noble Lords will go out to their parents and families.
	Like previous reports, the Blake review will have wider implications for our Armed Forces, the way they train their recruits and the MoD's duty of care. These issues are complex because they require a difficult balance. On the one hand, the Army needs individuals who will put themselves in the line of fire to protect all of us, and that inevitably requires a robust and tough training environment and a culture quite unlike that of civilian life. On the other hand, the Army has a duty of care to each individual under its command.
	Mr Blake makes a number of important points. He finds that the Army did not cause the deaths of the three recruits whose cases he studied, although he identifies a number of "institutional failures" in the Army. Despite calls for a public inquiry, he believes that no useful purpose will be served by holding one. He concludes that no new reliable evidence as to how the four trainees met their deaths is likely to be available. We recognise that that will come as a disappointment to the families, but Mr Blake's decision confirms the view that we have taken all along.
	The review demonstrates that mistakes were made in the MoD's duty of care for the young recruits in its charge and opportunities missed in dealing with the problems at the base. Between 1988 and 2002, seven inquiries into MoD training identified a number of the problem areas and shortfalls in provision. However, the MoD failed to act on these. The defence budget was grossly overstretched, and too often training seemed like an easy source of savings and a low priority for funding and improvements.
	The review is particularly critical of the levels of supervision at Deepcut, which in some cases were as bad as 1:60. In a Westminster Hall debate on 27 April 2004, the Secretary of State announced a further 179 instructors and a supervisory ratio target of 1:38 in all phase 1 and phase 2 training establishments. Can the Minister confirm that this target of 1:38 has been met?
	The review is very critical of the poor quality of accommodation and the sanitary and washing facilities available. What improvements has the MoD made in this very important area?
	We are aware that two of these recruits had medical records of self-harm prior to recruitment, unknown to the MoD. What is the MoD doing to identify vulnerable recruits on entry into the service? Is there sufficient psychological profiling of potential recruits, and will the Minister's department consider automatic availability of NHS medical records prior to a recruitment decision? What improvements have been made to the vetting procedure of instructors following the conviction of Leslie Skinner in December 2004 for indecent assault of four young recruits? Problems have been identified arising from the break between phase 1 and phase 2 training. What plans do the Government have to restructure the training programme to reduce the problems experienced by soldiers awaiting trade training?
	We welcome the recognition in the Statement of the need to spread and sustain best practice in relation to young soldiers beyond Deepcut—Bassingbourn and the Army Foundation College at Harrogate were both mentioned. We welcome the recognition that it would be appropriate to amend the Armed Forces Bill to meet some of the points identified by Mr Blake, and the Government can look to the Opposition to give a fair wind to such amendments.
	The Ministry of Defence and the Army are clearly embarked on a number of sensible measures to help prevent a recurrence of such failings. I hope that the Minster will continue to report regularly to this House that the better practices are in full operation, and that they have not been allowed to slide back as the memories of what did and did not happen at Deepcut slide back into the past.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I thank the Minister both for early sight of the Statement and the opportunity to have access to the report at the Ministry of Defence early this morning. Our sympathy is also with the families of these young soldiers, who died so early in their lives.
	Time will not allow us to deal with each of the 34 important recommendations in the Blake review, just as the Statement talks only broadly about them. When are we going to get this full report back? We cannot wait years to hear the Ministry of Defence's response. I trust that it will be within, for example, three months.
	As we have heard, the review does not recommend a further public inquiry, given that it does not believe that more evidence will emerge at this stage. It does, however, recommend disclosure of information to the families, among a number of other measures. It is too early to know how the families, who have suffered so much, will react. However, if the recommendations of the report in this section are fully implemented, closure may be achieved. We will have to wait to see how the police and the Government react to the recommendations.
	A number of important recommendations could be implemented by Ministry of Defence Ministers now. Do they intend to immediately implement them in full? The measures range widely, from the living conditions, supervisory arrangements, instructor vetting and training and investigation arrangements, through to complaints procedures. We have raised many of these issues on many occasions. It is always a question of priority for resources.
	Will the Minister assure us that under-18 year-olds in training are not to be put at risk through losing out in the resource priorities battle within the defence programme? Will he immediately implement the recommendation for separate training facilities for those aged 16? Will the poor quality accommodation, identified as a factor, be upgraded now and not left to rot like so much of the rest of the defence estate? Will the measures to vet and train instructors be implemented now, for the protection of young people? Will the recommendations regarding the Military Police be implemented? Here, again, we have concerns about resources, just as we recently had over the police in Iraq. In particular, will the Minister undertake to implement recommendation 24—that the Royal Military Police be brought formally under Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary?
	In this brief opportunity to focus on the issues raised by Deepcut, I wish to finish with two major areas. First, in recommendation 3, Blake examines whether it is right that the UK is one of the few countries which recruits child soldiers—that is, those under 18. We have had international criticism for this policy. The review says that recruiting needs are not a satisfactory justification, but goes on to say that the policy is justified given the inadequacies of education and training in the UK's civilian system. As long as the education benefits outweigh the downside of having child soldiers, the report requires a number of special safeguards: the separation of 16 year-olds; a right to resign if still under training, even if past your 18th birthday by the time you get there; and, most importantly—I ask for the Minister's comments and assurance on this—that no posting to the field army will occur before the age of 18. Do the Government intend to implement these immediately?
	Finally, recommendation 26 calls for the establishment of a commissioner of military complaints—an Armed Forces ombudsman for all the Armed Forces, not just trainees. The Armed Forces Bill has a watered-down proposal for an independent element in redress procedures. The Blake review has a much more useful recommendation, which could address the growing concern among the Armed Forces that their views on their conditions are just ignored. I suggest to the Minister that this is the opportunity to take an imaginative approach. Do the Government intend to take up that proposal in the Armed Forces Bill?
	If any good is to come from these terrible, tragic events at Deepcut, the Ministry of Defence needs to respond to transfer all the necessary resources to make its under-18 training regime safe, otherwise it needs to consider whether it can continue to recruit such young people into the army.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful for the tone taken by the noble Lords opposite in commenting on the Blake review. I stress that there is a complete commitment from the top of the Ministry of Defence and throughout the organisation to learn the lessons from the Blake review. It is right that we take the time to reflect fully on the recommendations of this detailed and comprehensive review, to ensure that that the implementation is done properly. Therefore, it is not appropriate for me to give commitments in this House today to implement the recommendations, but I give a commitment that I and my ministerial team will look at and review the Blake recommendations with speed. I shall answer directly the noble Lords' questions on the timescale for reporting back. Consistent with making sure that when we report back we are able to do so in a way that focuses on implementation, we will report back quickly—within months.
	With regard to the context in which the Blake review has taken place, it is important for us to note that a considerable amount has already been done by the Ministry of Defence and, particularly, by the British Army throughout the past seven years. Indeed, things were already being done prior to 1995. None the less, Blake shows that despite the significant improvements that have been made, which the report recognised, they have not gone far enough. More needs to be done. To give a specific example of what has been done already, I can say that considerable investment has gone into living accommodation. If people were to visit Deepcut today they would find, compared with five years ago, a significant improvement in the facilities. However, going forward from here, it is right to focus on the pace at which implementation takes place. I make a commitment to the House to report back to it regularly on the pace of that implementation. It is vital for us to show that we are properly putting people before equipment, that we have the right balance within our defence budget and that, consistent with the tempo and challenge of operations that we undertake within the defence budget, we put people first. There are clearly no better examples of people who should be put first than the youngest members of the Armed Forces, the trainees coming into them.
	It is important for me to give that context in terms of our response. We are working on the specifics relating to matters such as medical record disclosure—which was one of Blake's recommendations—and improvements in vetting procedures. We need to look in detail at how we can implement them properly. I know that in relation to vetting procedures we would like to go further with Criminal Records Bureau checks, but are unable to do so under the current legislation in respect of people already in full-time employment, rather than those applying for employment. We are having discussions with the Home Office about what can be done to develop legislation to enable us to go further.
	We are restructuring our training programme, which the noble Lord asked for. We must recognise the challenge that the Army faces in phase 2 training. Deepcut is a phase 2 training establishment where soldiers, having been through their basic training, go through their trade training, which can take several years to complete. It is a challenge for us to ensure that during that process their motivation is maintained for a considerable period. One of our innovations is to take people from the training establishment and have them spend short periods with the field army to maintain their motivation and recycle that trade training.
	Levels of appropriate supervision depend on the activities undertaken and the particular factors at each training establishment. Training establishments carry out different functions. Noble Lords have mentioned that Blake describes the excellent facilities provided at Bassingbourn and Harrogate. These clearly are good models which we know are working, so we have achieved improvements but have further to go.
	We accept that levels of supervision have been unacceptable in the past, and are making the improvements that need to be implemented now. We use the commanding officers risk assessment guidelines to determine the appropriate levels, as well as to ensure that the focus on the training of instructors is improved. I would be happy to provide further reports to the House as we make progress. We expect to be able to report on all the recommendations made by Blake to the House in months, but it is important, as noble Lords have requested, that that is maintained subsequently with regular updates.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I would like very much to associate myself with all the remarks made by my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall. He had the experience of commanding soldiers at a training depot. At the same depot, I had the experience of commanding child soldiers, including, at that time, some 15 year-olds. I remember the experience well. It was rather like commanding a ticking time-bomb in many ways, but you had to adopt different techniques to motivate them and to ensure that they were properly supervised.
	That is not the purpose of what I wanted to say. I have found that there are certain parallels in the report and the inquiry with suicides in prison. We have devoted a great deal of attention to these in your Lordships' House. I am very pleased to see in the report the clear recommendation that the impetus to make certain that conditions and treatment are right should come from the very top. That must start with Ministers and go all the way down. I was delighted to see that.
	I do not notice a concern that the press and many of the public have regarded the fact that these four deaths took place at Deepcut as an indication of a "conspiracy" at Deepcut. I remember exactly the same suspicion about HMP Brixton following the suicides of five Irish prisoners. Immediately there was suspicion that something was going on against Irish people as opposed to the fact that these were sad and random affairs. Each suicide needed investigation because each had separate circumstances. There is a great danger of trying to make a generalisation when that may not apply.
	The most important point, which I do not yet see recognised in the report, is the question of "time". A week ago I saw the parents of a young man who had committed suicide in a prison four and a half years ago. The inquest has only just taken place. Imagine what the family have been through in that time. One of the problems of this inquiry is again that the families have been waiting an enormously long time to hear the outcome. I therefore ask the Minister whether he will, when he goes through the recommendations, consider the word "time", see what can be done to speed up the inquiry process and make certain that the families particularly affected are given the facts as soon as possible to help them come to terms with their tragic bereavement.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 22J and 22K in lieu, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 22JA and 22L.
	I note that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, is not yet in his place. However, I wish to speak to Motion A1 standing in his name. I see that the noble Lord has now reached his place. In the best traditions of the House, he is seeking to reach an acceptable compromise in tabling Amendment Nos. 22M, 22N and 22O in lieu. I, on behalf of the Government, will urge my colleagues to support his Motion.
	The Commons earlier today reaffirmed their view, for the fifth time, that those applying for a designated document should have their details entered on the national identity register and be issued with an ID card. As your Lordships are aware, this has been fundamental to the Government's approach in implementing the identity cards scheme, going back to our very first consultation exercise in 2002. That approach continued in the policy announcement in 2003, the draft Bill scrutinised by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee in 2004, the Bill debated before the election, the Government's manifesto commitment, which we established yesterday was clearly understood—at least at the time—by the Liberal Democrats, and all our subsequent debates.
	As I said yesterday, during our debates we have conceded on many points. We have moved and moved and moved again, to the point where it is hard to see what more the Government can give. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, has persevered in his honourable attempts to find a way somewhere between "must" and "may".
	The noble Lord's Motion preserves the integrity of the national identity register by ensuring that the details of all applicants for designated documents will be entered in the national identity register, an issue which, as I have explained on a number of occasions to the House, is key and central to the Government's delivery of the process. This will mean that they will all be afforded the protection that this will provide from identity theft. It will also provide the wider benefits to society by ensuring that attempts by people to establish multiple identities will be more easily detected.
	Once the passport becomes the designated document, the noble Lord's amendment provides for a time-limited opt-out for people applying for passports to be issued with an identity card as well. I share the noble Lord's view that few people will opt out. For those who do, while they will not be able to prove their identity securely in a range of transactions with public and private sector organisations, they will also not be required to inform the authorities of changes in prescribed details such as their address; that obligation applies only to those to whom the ID card has been issued. As this has been one point that has appeared to cause some noble Lords concern, I hope that they will take this into account when deciding whether or not to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, today.
	If we are to secure value for money in the procurement process and obtain the full benefits of the scheme over time, there has to be certainty about the number of people registered and the proportion of people who hold ID cards. The noble Lord's amendment therefore sensibly sets a time limit on when the opt-out from being issued with an identity card would end. While the date of 1 January 2010 will add a degree of uncertainty to the Government's plans for implementing the scheme, this will, we hope, be manageable. I note that a number of noble Lords suggested the inclusion of a date yesterday. The debate has ranged around that issue. The date proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, strikes a sensible compromise and is acceptable to the Government.
	I have to confess that I have mixed feelings about our long and many debates on this Bill. In many respects, this House has performed its duty admirably in improving the Bill. But its actions in holding out against the clearly expressed wishes of the elected Chamber have put at risk this House's reputation—

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as ever, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the Bill. We always seem to be on a treadmill with Home Office Bills—as one goes, another one comes along.
	Crime statistics are trotted out by the Government to paint a picture of a Britain where crime is reducing, but we know that British crime survey figures are systematically flawed; they are not comprehensive and they omit murder, sexual offences and crimes against people under the age of 16 altogether. In the case of violent crime, they are contradicted by the recorded crime figures and by everyone's everyday experience. According to the international crime victimisation survey, Britain has the second highest levels of criminality in the industrialised world.
	At one end of the spectrum, we read of the appalling crimes of violence where law-abiding people are attacked as they walk home after a night out or unsuspectingly answer the door of their home to robbers. At the other end, we hear stories of fines being dished out to people who drop their junk mail into street litter bins or of ASBOs being imposed on those who are a suicide risk.
	We could argue the toss over the accuracy of crime figures until the end of this Government, but in the spirit of being constructive about this modest Bill, which tinkers at the edges of violent crime, I shall concentrate on the proposals in the Bill and our response to them.
	I have to observe that the Government obviously see no urgency about the Bill. Otherwise, why would they leave it mouldering on the shelf for so long? It had its Second Reading in another place on 20 June last year and its First Reading in this House on 15 November last year. Nineteen weeks have passed since the Bill reached this House. It is interesting to learn a little today of what I hope has been rather more progress by the Government in that time, particularly on drafting regulations. I welcome the moves that the noble Baroness announced today, particularly in accepting the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the other matters to which she referred.
	I would be grateful if the Minister could also tell us what progress the Government have made with regard to the policy detail of the alcohol disorder zone regulations. I note in particular a letter written by her right honourable friend Hazel Blears to my honourable friend Humfrey Malins on 10 November last year, which stated:
	"We are still working on the policy detail of the Alcohol Disorder Zone regulations, but hope to be able to have them in draft form as soon as possible".
	Will we have a sight of those before Committee and, if not, why not? Perhaps they might even be available today. As I have said in debates on previous Bills, I live in hope—always the optimist.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for referring to amendments that the Government will bring forward in Committee with regard to the treatment of those who have alcohol disorder-related problems. We will look at those with great care, but the principle is of course to be welcomed.
	What progress have the Government made on their plans to consult those businesses that will be penalised by the introduction of the alcohol disorder zones? What progress have they made on consultation with those who have an interest in legislation on air guns and imitation firearms? Will further amendments be brought forward in Committee to improve the Bill as a result?
	There are many parts of the Bill that we can support outright. Others we will support only subject to the important caveat of making sure that they are both fair and effective in their scope and application. We welcome the greater powers to be given to courts to allow them to ban individuals from drinking in pubs and clubs in a defined area for a given length of time. There is no doubt that local authorities need powers to control local drinking hotspots, and giving courts the chance to focus on serial disorderly drinkers who populate such places should, we hope, be of some help.
	There are a few issues that we will need to examine carefully in Committee to make sure that the scheme works better. It seems odd that licensees who control their premises impeccably should have to pay for the cost of dealing with the disorder caused by others who may not even be licensees. We will want to examine whether it is possible to give the local authority a measure of discretion in how it imposes charges on local businesses.
	We want to examine whether the Bill treats consultation in the right way. It does not at the moment, for example, seem to specify that businessmen and women from our ethnic communities should be included formally in the consultation process. We shall table amendments in Committee to address that issue.
	We support the proposals to create the offence of using an accomplice to conceal weapons. There is evidence that a number of cases are not prosecuted for lack of a weapon, so the provision may well help to convict more criminals.
	We on the Front Bench support the extension of the age limit for the purchase of air guns. I anticipate that those on my Back Benches who have long experience of the needs of rural areas may take an alternative view. I recognise fully that the lawful use of guns is an essential part of many areas of rural life and the rural economy. While this Bill is well intentioned, my noble friends will want to ensure that it will not prejudice the interests of those whose livelihoods are based in the rural community.
	We agree with the Government that there is a problem with replica firearms, which can be used to terrorise the public. They make life difficult and downright dangerous for the police, and they can lead to tragedy. However, the age-old problem of definition plagues this part of the Bill. I welcomed the Minister's further explanation of the term "antique". I and others will look carefully at her assurances regarding Clause 34(8), which relates to realistic imitation firearms pre-dating 1870.
	I always take very seriously assurances that are given at the Dispatch Box. Due to a domestic circumstance, I take them perhaps even more seriously this week than I might have done a week or so ago. As the Minister knows, my husband is a practising lawyer. He brought to my attention an exchange of views between the noble Baroness and me a little while ago during the passage of the Extradition Act. He showed me a recent decision by the Court of Appeal on the matter of habeas corpus. A categorical assurance about habeas corpus given to me by the Minister in response to an amendment was deemed by the Court of Appeal to be a clarification of the law, and it made a decision in an extradition case based on her assurance. So I take those matters seriously. We will need to see whether the definition that she has provided today goes far enough. I hope that it does.
	Other aspects of the definition of "realistic imitation firearm" also cause a problem. The Government made some sensible progress in another place, but we will need to examine further whether their objectives are fully met without causing the honest person to lose the opportunity to carry out his legal pastime, particularly those who engage in airsoft activities. I confess that, before this Bill came along, I had never heard of airsoft. When I did, I mistakenly thought that it was rather like paintball. I am grateful to the Association of British Airsoft for its careful briefing on this matter and for the time that it has taken with me. I now appreciate that the amendments which the Government passed in another place may not have had quite the beneficial effect that they intended and that the future of airsoft is still under threat.
	In addition, it seems that the new defences to the offence of possessing an imitation firearm do not fully cover historical re-enactors and those who run private museums and galleries. We will table amendments which examine that matter further. I understand that Hazel Blears is still in contact with some of the organisations that are interested in this part of the Bill—for example, the Association of British Airsoft. That is a constructive approach, and I hope that we will be able to make further progress in this House as a result.
	We are puzzled that the Government have still failed to carry out their commitment to establish a firearms committee of experts. We shall table an amendment which asks them to justify their inaction.
	The Bill deals also with weapons of a different kind: knives. There has been a sharp increase in knife killings since 1988 and the number of offences has gone up by 17 per cent. That clearly has to be tackled, but how? One does not prevent a crime by banning the weapons with which it is committed, although one may be able to limit its incidence and its effects. Rather, one prevents crime by detecting it, punishing it and, in the case of violent crime, keeping those responsible out of circulation and in prison for the safety of the public. We question whether the Government have had any great success on that.
	It is now proposed to increase the age at which knives can be bought legally. Somebody will be able to marry at 16, but not buy a knife to use in their kitchen. There is no reason to believe that the new offence will be effective. There is no shortage of knives in circulation and, with or without the Bill, there is unlikely to be a shortage in the future. A MORI poll in 2004 revealed that a quarter of children aged between 12 and 16 admitted to carrying a knife. Almost one in five of them said that they had attacked someone intending to do injury. That is a horrific statistic. If we want to reduce knife crime, we should focus on those who use the knives, not only on those who buy them.
	We support provisions throughout Part 3 of the Bill, as they tidy up a range of measures, from those tackling football disorder to others that strengthen the law on trafficking for sexual exploitation. During my first trawl through the Bill, I considered that the drafting did not require improvement. So this may be a first in my time speaking on home affairs since 2002, in that I shall not table any amendments to clauses in a part of a government Bill. I celebrate that—and the Minister may be rather relieved.
	Finally, there are a couple of measures that I shall seek to add to the Bill, which we hope the Government may find useful. They are put forward in a constructive spirit, and I shall table the new clauses tomorrow to make provision for them. The first is for a new criminal offence of "happy slapping". Noble Lords will be all too aware from press reports that there has been much concern about the prevalence of a new sort of activity among people who have ready access to a mobile phone that takes still or video pictures and who use that phone to record a criminal event—usually a group kicking, beating or raping an individual. The pictures are then transmitted to others on the basis that they can all have a good laugh at the victim and applaud the criminal. That is a despicable way in which to behave.
	The new offence that I hope to introduce would make it illegal for any person intentionally to make an audio or visual recording of a criminal offence for the purpose of obtaining gratification for himself or another. I stressed the words "intentionally", "purpose" and "gratification" for the very simple purpose of explaining that I believe that in that way I would ensure that those who record criminal events for the purposes of prosecuting the same are not caught by my proposed offence. I am thinking not only of the police or journalists, but also of the quick-thinking members of the public who took pictures in London of the consequences of the July bombings, for example. They are to be praised and would not fall foul of my proposed offence.
	My second proposal addresses the needs of those of our Olympians who excel at shooting events. At present, it is almost impossible for those who wish to participate in the pistol events to train properly without heavy financial burdens and the need to travel outside UK jurisdiction, which act as disincentives. We think it right that we work with the Government to introduce measures that would enable our shooting sportsmen and women to equip and train themselves in the UK for the Olympics when they are held in London in 2012. My noble friend Lord Glentoran will lead us on these matters. I shall give a little support, but he will do the redoubtable work on it.
	We shall seek to allow a person to have an authorised pistol, subject to several very severe conditions, giving the Secretary of State some very strong backstop powers. It will be vital to ensure that there is strict control so that the ownership and use of single-shot pistols is restricted to those who are training to take part in the Olympics in London. We must ensure that there is a time limit, so that sportspeople do not benefit from the relaxation of existing rules until 1 January 2010—that date might ring in the Minister's ears after our recent vote. That is two years in advance of the London Olympics. It is a date of my own choosing, unlike the one in the matter on which we have just voted. If the Government can find another and better way by which they can guarantee that our participants in the London Olympics will be able to practise within the UK, I shall be happy to discuss it with them.
	Overall, this is a well intentioned Bill, but one that merely tinkers at the edges of what we really need—a significant reduction in violent crime. Nevertheless, like the Minister, we look forward to a constructive and lively, if perhaps not too lively, time in Committee.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. Not for the first time—and, I am sure, not for the last—the Government Front Bench will find itself, on one issue at least, in a small squeeze between the noble Lord and myself.
	I want to suggest to the noble Baroness that we should correct a couple of previous pieces of legislation involving sport. She will be aware of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and its intention to raise the standards of the security industry in relation to licensed premises and to reduce criminality within the security industry. However, is she aware that the regulating authority—the Security Industry Authority— has subsequently sought to include stewards at sports grounds and major sports events? I am led to understand that even the PGA European Tour open golf championship, the Olympics, when they come, and all other major sports events of that nature could fall, as they do at present under the law, within that remit. This potentially causes a huge financial and administrative burden to all the sports involved.
	I understand that arrangements are already in place for football events under a separate regulatory framework, and rightly so. The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, knows considerably more about the football world than I do. However, during the initial consultation on the licensing of door supervisors et cetera, and in the accompanying regulatory impact assessment, it was not made explicit that the proposals would apply in the case of other sports events. Nor were representative bodies on the consultation lists. This seems to suggest that sporting events were not intended to come within the scope of this Act. The Minister for Sport, Richard Caborn, has said that in other places. It may well have been an oversight that they were not excluded from the Act in the same way as cinemas and theatres were.
	I understand that, as of last week, it has become illegal to work as a security guard without an SIA license, which means that organisers of sports events are now—today—potentially criminally liable for using unlicensed stewards. I also understand that consultation is going on between those representing sports events organisers and the Home Office. While this consultation is going on, however, members of the sports industry have been left in uncertainty about whether they will fall foul of the Act. As I understand it, they are relying solely on an informal agreement with the police that they will not be prosecuted. I am sure noble Lords will agree that that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
	The Bill presents us with an opportunity to rectify this unfortunate situation. I ask the Minister to table an amendment in Committee through which we can agree to sort this out, or perhaps I could speak to officials outside the Chamber and try to draft an opposition amendment that might satisfy the Government.
	The second issue is another problem caused by previous legislation which also was mentioned earlier today by my noble friend Lady Anelay. It is the effect of firearms legislation on the ability of our pistol-shooting athletes to compete with foreign competitors on an equal footing. I acknowledge the sensitive nature of this issue. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 was passed after the terrible events at Dunblane. However, the ban on sporting handguns has had a disproportionate effect on would-be international and Olympic competitors who wish to represent their country in a perfectly legitimate activity.
	I accept that there is a massive gun crime problem in the United Kingdom, but I am afraid that, since 1997, the current system has proved ineffective in preventing the rise in gun crime, while jeopardising the UK's medal-winning attempts for the London 2012 Olympics. Three of the 15 Olympic shooting disciplines involve the use of banned cartridge-firing pistols, but the current situation means that our athletes have to store their weapons and train abroad for these events at great expense and inconvenience. I understand that, for the Manchester Commonwealth Games in 2002, special licenses had to be issued to allow the English team to import their pistols into the UK. While this may provide a temporary and expedient solution for a specific event, it does not address the lack of opportunity for young pistol shots to train regularly and cheaply. As the Government have just set a target of the UK being in the top four of the final medal ratings for the 2012 Olympics, now would be an excellent time to remove this impediment to our medal-winning hopes. I understand that the Great Britain Target Shooting Federation is in talks with the Home Office on this issue. The last thing I would wish would be for anything to jeopardise a successful outcome to those discussions, but given the context of the Bill, now would seem an appropriate moment to ask Her Majesty's Government what their intentions are in this matter.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's response and to further discussions on the detail of the legislation at a later date.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I endorse straightaway what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said about the constructive tone of the debate. We have assent from all Benches that these are issues with which we must grapple. I very much accept the pithy and telling comments made by the noble Viscount that the devil is often in the detail. We need to be proportionate and ensure that we do only that which is necessary. I respectfully agree with him on that. I commend, welcome and celebrate the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in relation to her restraint on Part 3. She is an exemplar I ask others to follow.
	I say, too, on a serious note that we do not see the Bill as a panacea to all ills. It is not, but it is a valiant and appropriate contribution to the tool kit that we think we need as a community to respond to difficult and pressing problems with which we are jointly faced. The tasks that the Bill will address are important.
	We very much take on board the comments made by the right reverend Prelate on the need to ensure that the offences that we have are necessary. I endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the drink banning orders. They do not contain a provision regarding imprisonment, but they contain an appropriate community intervention in relation to responding to a difficult problem—and with support.
	The Bill must be seen alongside all the other measures that we are taking on health and education to try to change the culture to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred. I agree that there is a need to address the underlying problem of alcohol misuse. That is why we are introducing new clauses to enable individuals to take a course to address their alcohol misuse and behaviour.
	I very much endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Brooke, who made some powerful points not only in support of the Bill, but in directing our minds and attention to the work that is being done more broadly to support the reduction of abuse of alcohol. I assure him that the Government and the Department of Health are convening a group with industry representatives specifically to consider labelling and the sensible-drinking message. The undertaking given in the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy is to review the strategy in 2007.
	Of course, the Government are continually assessing the impact of new developments and will respond accordingly. They are involved in alcohol referral schemes in a number of areas, and the Home Office, through the conditional caution pilots and the custody referral schemes for drink and capacity, is dealing with that too. The Department of Health and the screening and brief intervention pilots are seeking to make a contribution.
	The Minister with responsibility for alcohol matters in the Home Office is my honourable friend Paul Goggins. He met representatives of the Aquarius scheme in Dudley and has asked officials to explore alcohol referral schemes in detail. In saying that, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that we are taking these issues absolutely seriously. I know that that is certain to be a satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others who have raised them this evening.
	I could excite your Lordships by giving a long catalogue of further things that we are doing in that regard, but perhaps we can wait until we come to Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others sought to indicate that we are not enforcing the current law, but we are doing so. The figures are not going down. If one looks at the figures for the number of defendants proceeded against in the magistrates' court and found guilty, and sentenced at all courts for offences in England and Wales, the figures for enforcement of drunk and disorderly behaviour have gone up, not down. We can track the figures from 1993 to 2003. I shall give the headline figure. In 1993 it was 20,578; in 2003 it was 31,343. We know that prosecution is not the only answer; education, intervention and the help and support programmes are also of critical importance.
	The Government's commitment is evidenced in this Bill. It is clear that we have already taken many steps to enhance our performance and that has been beneficial. I have touched on the subject of the behaviour orders, and from what noble Lords across the House have said about them it is clear that we all think they will be beneficial and supportive, particularly if we rely on the additional support that I have indicated we will bring forward in future.
	It is right that we consider alcohol disorder zones. I very much welcome the support from right round the House in that respect, but there is a huge amount of detail. That detail was questioned in the other place and we have to consider it here. I can assure noble Lords that we are giving it the most anxious and acute consideration.
	The issues raised by noble Lords are valid and we want to be able to make an appropriate response. I hope that I have reassured the House that we do not see alcohol disorder zones as the first port of call, but very much as the last after the action plans and using the available licensing provisions. But they may be a useful tool. However, we will return to those many complex and detailed issues in Committee. I hope that I will be able to better satisfy my noble friend Lord Graham, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, the noble Viscount and others who raised those matters. They are proper issues and we will have to deal with them in detail.
	As I have already indicated, we will also be following the recommendations on the affirmative resolution. Therefore, we will have another opportunity, even after the passage of this Bill, to ensure that we get it right—a point echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
	With regard to alcohol disorder zones, I hope that I can also reassure my noble friend Lord Graham that the size of the area that might be designated is of acute concern to us. We do not think that it would be appropriate for the whole of a local authority's area to be so designated without very powerful information to justify it. The ADZs will be very tightly drawn around specific areas—perhaps a very few streets—which is why we have defined them as I have just indicated.
	We consulted the industry on ADZs. Proposals for them were included in our consultation paper, Drinking Responsibly: The Government's Proposals, published in January 2005, and Ministers and officials met the industry in the summer and autumn of 2005 to discuss these matters. We will continue to consult the industry on the orders, including the guidance, as the Bill requires us to do. Noble Lords will also see that the Bill provides for a 28-day consultation period in areas where ADZs are proposed. I know that that consultation concerns the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, acutely.
	The Licensing Act—a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—strengthens the powers available to local partners to take tough action against irresponsible operators. We hope that the ADZs will build on that strong foundation. We will continue to look at how we can better support responsible drinking. The responsible drinking consultation paper said that the link between sale and consumption and a particular premise and disorder may be tenuous. That is not the same as saying that the link between alcohol and disorder is tenuous, but we can address that at a later stage.
	I now turn to the issues relating to guns. I found the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, interesting, but I rather agree with the noble Viscount that his interpretation was somewhat alarming. We think it sensible to restrict access to dangerous weapons used in violent crime but, as I said earlier, there is much to be done in addressing the gun culture. Last year, the £2 million from recycled criminal assets was used on anti-gun projects. The Connected Fund was launched in 2004 and it has given support to more than 200 community groups working to tackle gun crime and related matters. That is an issue on which we have to work quite hard.
	I know that the matter of private museums has excited the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I am pleased to be able to give a bit of pleasure right at the beginning, so that we may have a slightly happier time than otherwise. We have in Clause 33 already provided defences where the imitation firearm is made available for the purposes of a museum or gallery. We accept that this may have been drawn a little too tightly, in that it confines the defence to museums that do not distribute any profit that they make. We will therefore extend this defence in Committee, so that certain private museums—which are open to the public as bona fide tourist attractions—can acquire new exhibits. I hope that your Lordships will think that a sensible and appropriate move.
	A number of noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and, again, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—raised the issue of pistol sports. I join the noble Earl in celebrating the fantastic shooting results that we have had at the Commonwealth Games. That may indicate that the things that we have done have not inhibited our success, but perhaps that is for another day.
	Pistol shooting events will certainly be able to go ahead in 2012 without changes to legislation. We have already said that we will put in place the same arrangements that worked so well for the Manchester Commonwealth Games, involving use of the Home Secretary's powers under Section 5 of the Firearms Act to authorise competitors and officials to possess prohibited handguns for the duration of the games and for the special warm-up events. We will discuss with colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements should be made to allow squads to practise in the United Kingdom in advance of the games. I hope that that, too, has given satisfaction to noble Lords opposite.
	The noble Lady raised the issue of airsoft rifles. It has been suggested that we have cast our net a little too wide and that the proposed ban on the manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms will bear down too hard on people who engage in airsoft activities. While we accept that realism is an important aspect of skirmishing, we can see no good reason why non-realistic guns cannot be used for these activities. The Bill makes provision for size, shape and colour to be taken into account in determining whether an imitation firearm is distinguishable from a real firearm, and airsofters can take advantage of these provisions. We will be looking at this area together, and I assure noble Lords opposite that the Government are trying to be constructive in addressing this issue.
	Noble Lords will know that we received a large response to the consultation on firearms—around 4,500 submissions. They have all been read and analysed, and we are considering how to proceed. A summary of the responses will be published in due course. We have a duty to act immediately when it becomes apparent that steps are needed to protect public safety; in particular, the increasing use of imitation firearms in crime means that we need to place restrictions on their general availability. I am glad to welcome the comments made in support of that right around the House. I reiterate my thanks for the constructive approach on that.
	My noble friend Lord Pendry made interesting and comprehensive comments on ticket touting. I commend him for his unstinting work in this area over a number of years. The provisions in the Bill on ticket touting extend the existing legislation to cover sales over the internet. Ticket touting for football matches has public order consequences, as he has indicated. Unauthorised sales undermine crowd segregation, which is why we are using public order legislation to address touting in football. Similar problems in relation to the potential for disorder do not apply to other sports in the same way. We will, of course, be keeping this issue under review.
	I took to heart the concerted three-Bench, three-pronged approach from the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Pendry regarding the application of the licensing provisions in the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to security guards in the sports and events sector. The Bill presents an opportunity to seek views from all concerned. We have today published a consultation document on the application of the licensing provisions and I hope that it will give us an opportunity to look at this issue and get it right. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others who think that we have applied this law by some slip that it is not, as is claimed, an accident that the sports sector was included in the Bill's provisions. The security industry is broad, but we are keen to consult further to ensure that we get it right, that it catches those who should be caught and that another way can be found for those for whom another way should be found.
	The noble Baroness touched on the issue of knives. As she rightly said, there is already a range of legislation to tackle the problem of knife crime. It is an offence to carry a knife in a public place without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a small, folding pocket-knife. Those found guilty face a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment. The possession of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse carries a maximum penalty of four years in prison. We are tackling knife crime in a variety of ways. They include a knife amnesty to which I referred earlier that will run in England and Wales from 24 May to 30 June. The provisions in the Bill particularly focus on problems associated with young people and knives. That is why we are raising the age at which a knife can be purchased to 18 and why we are introducing a power for staff in schools and colleges to search pupils and students for weapons. The Government are committed to tackling violent crime involving knives and offensive weapons and we believe that these measures will make a valuable contribution.
	Of course I hear it said that we allow people to get married at 16 but we will not let them buy knives. Well, some people think that it is fairly dangerous to get married at 16. However, it is lawful and has many benefits in terms of stability, security and warmth, among others. Buying knives that are not going to be used for normal proposes is a different matter. We must look at the issue. We have had a problem and it has been highlighted by some tragic consequences. Therefore, we think it necessary to look at the issue in a proportionate, reasonable and appropriate way. I can assure the House that that is how we intend to deal with it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked about searching pupils for weapons and whether two teachers would be necessary. The Bill provides that searches are carried out only in the presence of another person aged 18 or over and by an individual of the same sex as the pupil being searched. Another adult will be present, but I am sure that the noble Lord does not seek to make a distinction between a teaching assistant and a teacher or some other responsible adult in a school.